Did John Paul the Great Hate Men?
Actually, I recall reading something along those lines from a certain feminist writer. Her point was that he seemed to idealize women into something they could never be but he completely ignored men or at most made them into creatures somehow less than human. That made him both a man hater and a misogynist. While some feminists have a hard time being objective in addressing matters in which they perceive a threat to their agenda, it is not just these writers who have noticed that the late Holy Father did not seem to write about men as much as he did about women. Many of those who traditionally agree with him also criticized him for this. Looking for myself at his writings the most that I could come up with which was exclusively directed to men was a paragraph on men in the apostolic exhortation Familiaris consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World) and an apostolic letter on St. Joseph obliquely focusing on men”Redemptoris custos (Guardian Of The Redeemer).
When one looks at the crisis of fatherhood in the West and the resulting dissolution of family life, it seems that perhaps there might be something to this criticism. I have looked at this argument and, trying not to idolize a mortal but still great man, I tried to consider the possibility that he did ignore men and concentrated his whole thought on women. However, I also decided that perhaps he didn’t ignore men at all but addressed them implicitly for some reason. I found that the latter was the case. But then came the question as to why.
Before saying what I came up with, I wonder if any one else has thought about this issue and what you may have come up with? I suppose you could answer:
A. No, and I don’t care.
B. Yes, but I don’t care.
C. No, but let me hear what you found out.
D. Yes, ______________ (fill in the blank).
E. No response (likely to be the most popular I suppose).
.jpg)
I’ve never really thought about JPIIs lack of explicit addresses to men. I agree that he spoke more implicitly about us. I do believe that he was a product of his time and, thus, felt that a more pressing focus was/is the role of women in the world, Church and family.
Do I care? Sure. I’m just beginning to read up on his Theology of the Body. It’s great stuff. It really deifies humanity. It’s funny that sex w/in the context of marriage is NEARLY brought up to the level of Sacrament (yes, capital S) by many young theologians. These are not flaming liberal theologians either! This would’ve never happened 50 years ago, but, then, most theologians were clerics at the time so sex wasn’t on their radars.
JPII did a lot for the lay Christian in the pews. Very few popes b4 him seemed to notice that the majority of the Church is comprised of us! He really believed that the Church is the people of God. Still, I’m not ready to call him JP the great. Time will tell if he garners that name….
I’ll continue reading and enjoying your blog. It is quite relevant to my life and my girlfriend’s too!
Pax,
N
Comment by NathanE — July 28, 2005 @ 10:41 am
c. but do check out the theology of the body, as I am sure he treats the roles of each sex in turn in there.
Comment by Kate — July 28, 2005 @ 10:56 am
It is a good thought to ponder. I always used JPII’s Theology of the Body to show people that the Church’s teaching on sexuality is really quite liberating and that it certainly doesn’t oppress women. I agree, John Paul put an extra effort into dignifying women by the eulogies that he wrote.
As for the guys, I really like the way Christopher West developed JPII’s TOTB in the context of men. I suggest watching “Winning the Battle for Sexual Purity”. I’ve watched it 3 times and it’s still a roller coaster.
That’s all I got.
Peace
Comment by Mike — July 28, 2005 @ 2:30 pm